|
There is a problem facing the NewSpace movement that practically no one is talking about. The problem rests in international space law. NewSpace is based on profit-driven capitalist free-markets. Unfortunately, international space law is anathema to such an economic system in space.
The Outer Space Treaty lays out the overarching concepts of space being the "common heritage of mankind," and that all spacefaring activities must be "for the benefit of all peoples." Appearing along side these communist or socialist mantras is the forbiddance of states to claim sovereignty over any object in space. Its authors meant well, but failed to anticipate the rise of a commercial space sector. Since its inception, space law has been dominated by the arms control community and this remains the case -- much to the detriment of NewSpace and the commercial development of space.
These laws had their place in the OldSpace regime where states were trying to constrain other states from dramatically increasing their power and influence through the acquisition of space resources. Unfortunately, the language in space treaties, law, and even proposed "rules of the road," and "codes of conduct" remains focused on arms control to the degree that it essentially limits space to a place for little more than scientific exploration. In other words, it turns outer space into a museum where select humans who pass a moral litmus test are invited go, provided they "look, but don't touch" -- to paraphrase Carl Sagan and Scott Pace.
NewSpace is not about building rockets to sell to government space programmes, *per se*. NewSpace is about selling rockets to other space entrepreneurs who intend to expand human presence across the solar system and reap a profit through space development and resource harvesting. Space law must be developed that will enable, facilitate, and promote the commercial development of space resources. Even if companies from only one country go to space to harvest resources, it must be remembered that doing so "benefits all peoples" by making the rest of the Earth's resources available to everyone else at a lower demanded market price. Indeed, if we can alleviate population pressure on this planet by bringing space resources to Earth and sending percentages of our population to settle in space, that is good for all life on our current planet.
I propose that a fresh body of space treaties and laws be drafted that clearly refer to all previous such instruments as applying only to state spacefaring ventures under the arms control-laden OldSpace regime. The new space law must embrace NewSpace and capitalist free-markets in space. It must provide the type of legal clarification that businesses need in order to have a predictable business environment. Legal clarification can facilitate NewSpace by removing uncertainly faced by the owning, financing, and insuring companies over issues such as: licensing, registration, liability, indemnity, jurisdiction, property/mineral/resource rights, zoning, space environmental standards, debris mitigation/removal, collision avoidance, space traffic management, *inter alia*. Such issues are woefully unaddressed or ambiguous in current space law because the focus has always been on arms control and constraining state behaviour. Using broad, sweeping language in such law has resulted in constraints -- at least perceptually -- on commercial space activities as well.
In sum, we must bifurcate space law. Current space treaties and laws need not be reopened or done away with. They simply must be identified as applying only to states' spacefaring practices. New space law must be developed to further enable entrepreneurial activities in space as part of the profit-driven capitalist free-market NewSpace movement. There needs to be OldSpace Law and NewSpace Law.
If not, then NewSpace will ultimately fail to reach its potential, if it survives at all.
Note: M. V. Smith's comments reflect his personal opinions and are not officially endorsed by the US Government, the Department of Defense, or any associated organization. |
Example of the problem - in some countries there are regulations system over what could be made public and what should remain hidden. As the result, we can read articles in scientific journals about where Satellites business thrives to its maximal potential, and where entrepreneurs experience regulation problems.
No matter how hard the secrets are kept hidden, we could read the stories like who created the clone of whose aeroplane, and so on. Lets suppose there are really some secrets surviving being hidden for some record time frames. Good.
If the military interests do not cover some areas, private entrepreneurs use confidentiality by themselves quite comparable to the military standards.
And this is where we are running into the problems with humanity's overall development being stuck in one place.
Every physical or theoretical invention is based on previous knowledge of the society. And if valuable knowledge is kept secret for a few decades, it blocks other scientists ability to discover something useful.
Everyone should have noticed this far, that getting into the Space seriously happened to be much more complicated than we thought initially.
In order to find the alternatives to the rockets, we need to employ every possible scientist, until someone accidentally finds something that helps to succeed with finding new methods for getting into the orbit, and so on. There were some press releases recently about the scientists starting research on swarm research concept, where large group of people collectively works on some hard to crack problem.
Having only few thousands of vacancies to participate in really tough, often secretive projects, excludes hundreds of thousands beautiful minds who otherwise seek fulfilment by playing virtual reality games, and so on. And how exactly could we know who of those selected ones really will be capable to find new things? I have been in headhunting and management for too long to believe that somebody has the right selection instruments. Miracles do not happen.
So, by using closed research model, we are doing everything we can to not to invent alternative to the rockets, and to not go into the space as hard as we can. Strange.
I propose that we improve leading countries laws to such extent, that fundamental science remains public and quite unregulated. Everyone is free to participate and share the results, free to focus on achieving the goals, and not worrying about which laws he has broken this time.
Only knowledge and technology appliance is to be regulated, if someone wishes so. It is about the competition over who could model and assemble better space shuttles, and not who will first get to know the secret of what really is inertia, and how it works, and then will keep that secret for eternity. From safety point of view, we should better focus on monitoring manufacturers from doing something bad, not on banning them to do at least something that transforms humanity into space civilization.
The question is, how to reform patents, export control, commercial secrets, "dual use", and other laws, how to change the system into more open one, while keeping business and military interests functional. People tend to learn something, and then to fix on that for the remaining life. How to change the world?
change the "tax code" or the "laws." They're much easier to do.
You also might want to check out http://acuriousguy.blogspot.com/2010/02/feedback-on-men-whove-sold-moon.html for an explaination of the present Moon Treaty and where it's likely to go.